Delhi High Court stays the release of Hindi film “Badmashiyaan”

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday passed an ad-interim order in a suit filed by Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd (MSM), the Indian subsidiary of Sony Entertainment Television, staying the release of Bollywood film “Badmashiyaan”.  Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd (MSM), in its suit, had alleged copyright infringement by the movie’s producers. 

 

"Badmashiyaan' actors at its teaser launch

Justice Indermeet Kaur also restrained the film’s producers from airing trailers of the movie, which according to MSM, is a copy of a Korean film “Couples” as well as its own production “Mango”, that is yet to be released. The court, in its ad-interim ex-parte order, also issued notice to VRG Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd which has produced “Badmashiyaan”, as well as Sidus FNH Corporation, the producer and copyright owner of the Korean film, and sought their replies by 22 May.

MSM has also sought damages of Rs.25 lakh from VRG for infringing its copyright. MSM has contended that the rights to make a Hindi remake of “Couples” was obtained by co-producer Kaleidoscope Entertainment Pvt. Ltd (KEPL) from Sidus FNH in March 2013.

Thereafter, MSM and KEPL “entered into a film production agreement, before commencement of production of the said film, and hence, plaintiff 1 (MSM) is the first owner of copyright in and to the said film,” the petition claimed. MSM and KEPL’s film, Mango, was produced in 2013-14 and its trailers were exhibited in February-March 2014, it said. 

In January 2015, MSM and KEPL had come across trailers of Badmashiyaan on ‘Youtube’ and found that the movie was an adaptation of the Korean movie as well as Mango, the plaintiff alleged. 

“Defendant 1 (VRG), the producer of Badmashiyaan copied the plot, treatment and screenplay of Couples as well as Mango. Accordingly, defendant 1 has infringed the exclusive contractual right of the plaintiffs (MSM and KEPL) to make the adaptation of Couples into Hindi language,” it has alleged. 

“Badmashiyaan”, starring Suzanna Mukherjee, Sharib Hashmi, Siddhant Gupta, Gunjan Malhotra and Karan Mehra, was slated for release on 27 February.

Compassionate appointments permitted by statute cannot be denied citing agreements entered into with trade unions : High Court of Kerala

The High Court of Kerala has recently held that compassionate appointments permitted by statute cannot be denied citing agreements entered into with labour unions.

The ruling came while the Court was considering a petition filed by R Rita Bella of Kozhipara in Palakkad questioning denial of compassionate appointment by KSEB citing a provision in long term settlement (LTS) with few registered trade unions.

Rita's husband 31-year-old Felix Leo, who was working as a lineman, had suffered serious injuries in a motor accident on January 21, 2007 and he became permanently incapacitated. He was certified to be permanently disabled at 100 per cent by KG Hospital at Coimbatore.

Though Rita sought appointment under compassionate scheme, KSEB turned down the claim.  Assailing the stand of the KSEB, Rita approached the High Court. Defending its stand in Court, the KSEB attempted to justify its decision of declining to grant compassionate appointment to Rita by relying on a long term settlement entered with the trade unions in March 2007.

In one of the clauses of the LTS, it was stated that compassionate appointment would be granted only in if the employee became invalid due to accidents occurred during the course and out of employment. The accident had occurred on a Sunday and Felix was not on duty that day.

Disagreeing with KSEB's stand, Justice V. Chitambaresh held, "The Regulation as regards appointment of dependents of employees of KSEB who retire on invalid pension are statutory and the powers can be traced to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Valuable rights have been conferred thereunder prescribing the eligibility for appointment provided at least one year of service was left for the invalid employee. These rights can be abridged or otherwise altered only by an amendment of the statutory regulations, which has not hitherto been done. A long term settlement cannot override the statutory regulations in deciding the eligibility for appointment of dependents of employees who retire on invalid pension."

Reclamation of paddy field for setting up a private school would fall within the meaning of “public purpose” as envisaged in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 : High Court of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has held in a recent judgment that reclamation of paddy field for setting up a private school would fall within the meaning of “public purpose” as envisaged in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and that the Government was not right in declining permission for the said purpose. 

Under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the government can grant exemption to convert or reclaim paddy land for public purpose on the basis of the State Level Monitoring Committee's recommendation as per section 10 of the Act. 

 

 Justice A Muhamed Mustaque hearing a writ petition filed by the manager of a CBSE school ordered the government to allow a CBSE school at Marampilly in Ernakulam to reclaim paddy land to build a road within two months.

Manager of Amal Public School, through advocate C A Navas, had filed the writ petition challenging a government order that denied exemption from the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act for reclamation for the purposes of setting up a private school.

The Local Level Monitoring Committee comprising of the Village Panchayat president, agricultural officer and Village Vfficer had recommended reclamation of land to the state level committee as stipulated in Section 8 of the Act After scrutiny, the state level committee too endorsed the recommendation. 

The government had however rejected it on the ground that the school's need would not fall within the definition of public purpose. 

Justice Muhamed Mustaque held: "If education is identifiable as one which in normal course the state would have discharged or undertaken, necessarily this would fall within the meaning of public purpose. Since the petitioner is not engaged in commercial activities to sub-serve any private interest, I do not find any impediment in recognizing the activity discharged by the petitioner for the purpose of satisfying the meaning of public purpose as envisaged by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008."

Tax on salary and pension drawn by nuns and priests working as teachers in government-aided institutions can be deducted at source: High Court of Kerala

The Kerala High Court in a judgment rendered last week has held that income tax can be deducted at source from salary or pension paid to priests. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar said that if the salary of priests and nuns working in government-aided institutions is submitted to the common pool of their congregation, such congregations have to pay the income tax on account of the individual income of inmates drawn from the government.

 

As many as 49 priests and nuns, working as teachers in government-aided educational institutions, had moved to the High Court challenging the directive of the Income Tax Department to the State Treasury that tax has to be deducted at source from salary and pension payments.

Relying on a 1944 circular and a 1977 instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the nuns and priests had contended that fees and other earnings of missionaries, which they were obliged to turn over to the congregation, cannot be treated as income in their hands. 

Senior counsel P K Ravindranath Menon, who represented Income Tax Department, argued that the circular and instruction refer only to income earned by missionaries and not all members of the congregation. The exemption would only apply to those engaged in dissemination of religious knowledge and not to those who are engaged in general vocations, including teaching profession, the senior counsel submitted. 

Upholding the Income Tax Department directive, the Court observed that it was the government which pays salary for the petitioners as employees of the government-aided institutions. The Court said if the priests and the nuns hand over their income to their religious congregation with the support of a legal agreement, the clergy need not pay tax individually. However, their congregations have the liability to pay the income tax of members drawing government salary. However, to consider the clergy as income tax assessee, the court said it should be ascertained whether there is a legal pact between the clergy and their congregations regarding the transfer of individual income to the account of the institution.

The High Court of Kerala in its opinion further said that an analysis of the Supreme Court's decisions on the subject indicated that tax exemption can be claimed only if the income is diverted, through a pre-existing legal arrangement, at the stage when the amount leaves the source. Through such pre-existing legal obligation, the congregation should have a legal right to claim the amount directly from the source and without the intervention of the member of the congregation, the court said.

Madras High Court passes interim order in a case directing Government authorities to issue a circular forthwith banning the conduct of beauty contests in colleges in Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court hearing a petition filed a mother of a student alleging non-conferment of the promised prize at a beauty pageant held as part of a cultural event at Anna University's College of Engineering in Guindy, has passed an interim order directing the government authorities to issue a circular forthwith banning the conduct of beauty contests in colleges in Tamil Nadu.

 

Madras High Court

Justice T S Sivagnanam passed the interim order in a petition filed by a mother, Lakshmi Suresh, who said her daughter, an engineering student, participated in Ms Techofes contest held as part of the annual cultural event at Anna University's College of Engineering in Guindy in February 2013. The girl won the beauty contest, but was given a forged certificate by the organisers of Ms. Techofes-2013. She was also not given the promised prize, the petitioner claimed.

Claiming that her daughter's dignity and decency had been undermined, Lakshmi demanded the promised prize along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh.

Justice Sivagnanam wondered as to how walking the ramp would benefit a student pursuing a course in engineering. In his order, Justice Sivagnanam said: "One issue which is a matter of concern is whether at all such an event to select the best-looking male/female student is required to be conducted in a cultural event, that too organized by a century-old engineering college established and administered by the government."

Justice Sivagnanam further said that the court intended to examine whether the university exercised due care and control over these programmes, whether there are any guidelines and how funds are administered. "Till these issues are considered, the secretary of higher education department, commissioner of technical education and director of collegiate education are directed to issue a circular forthwith to all institutions, universities, deemed universities and colleges in the state to ban or not to conduct any beauty show or programme to decide best looking male/female student in their institution or at inter-collegiate level."

The University however contended that it was not aware of any such event or prize. Rejecting this argument of the University, Justice Sivagnanam said: "When the programme was conducted on the premises of the university, it cannot be stated that officials of the university were not aware of various events mentioned in the programme. It could be presumed that programme schedule would have to be approved by the university before the event is conducted."

The Court then said that certain interim directions were required to prevent such unpleasant experiences.  "Fanciful price money is being advertised and several corporate giants fund the programme. The larger question would be the need for such a programme in such a cultural festival," said Justice Sivagnanam. It was in this context that the Court asked the governmental authorities to ban the holding of such beauty contests.

 

The Court then adjourned the matter to May 22 for further hearing.